Reactor meltdown possible in Japan.

[cut]

Check this out:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/14/gotta-watch-ireporters-capture-scope-of-quake/?hpt=C2

It is like being on a sand flat during low tide. Smack the sand in a rhythmic fashion and you will see that it will "liquify" very quickly, very cool. This is the mechanism behind earthquake induced mudslides - some of them anyway.

[Master of Disaster]

My understanding that they were manually venting it out.

Ahhh, got ya. I do have to give props to the Japanese if this were going to happen. They seem to be pretty on top of how to address it, AND ask for help when needed. Chernobyl took what? A few minutes to go critical and explode? That alone should provide some evidence that they are doing something right.

[samdman95]

This was supposedly raised to a level 5 INES rating.

For a full scale check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Events_Scale#Level_5:_Accident_with_wider_consequences

[BxEngine]

This has been covered before several times, but since this thread is now quite long...

Actually, they are "sort of" allowing the hydrogen to build up. The hydrogen is coming from inside the reactor core when they pour seawater on the fuel rod frame. The fuel rods are now so hot (above 2200 F) that the water is reacting (oxidizing) with a metal in the frame, releasing hydrogen. To relieve the pressure in the core they are releasing gas out of the core and into the containment building.

The reactor core itself is 6" thick stainless steel, designed to do what the Twin Towers couldn't (survive a direct hit from a passenger jet). This makes it extremely unlikely that the earlier explosions did any damage of significance to the reactor core.

Not to completely derail this...but the possibility exists that wtc 1 and 2 could have survived the initial hits..but combined with the fires caused the collapse.

[famartin]

You seem to know this stuff. Background? I am just a physics junky, but you seem to know what you are talking about. What do you think happens from here? Does the fuel get out of the vessel? Ground water? Explosion?

I've just been paying attention the last few days, reading through the various articles in the legitimate media. Based on what's been going on, it seems that the danger of another hydrogen explosion in the building containing reactor number two is quite high. And it seems that some partial meltdown in all three cores is likely. A complete meltdown is not impossible, but they are working feverishly to keep the cores cool enough to prevent it. We'll see how successful they are.

[Ed Lizard]

If they indeed measured cesium 137, a fission product, there has been at least slight damage to the fuel rods. Cesium has a short half life, and is present in very minute quantities in nature. Thus, measuring Cs 137 is indication of fuel rod damage and fission product release.

The release could be small...

[Ginx snewx]

The coolant system is definitely damaged, as it no longer is capable of bringing in or removing water. That's why they've resorted to pouring in seawater and venting out excess gas. But the reactor core itself is unlikely to be damaged.

I would love to see or be explained in diagram form how they are using fire fighting pumps etc to fill the core with seawater. There is a lack of info on what is taking place technically right now.

[famartin]

Ahhh, got ya. I do have to give props to the Japanese if there were going to happen. They seem to be pretty on top of how to address it, AND ask for help when needed. Chernobyl took what? A few minutes to go critical and explode? That along should provide some evidence that they are doing something right.

Chernobyl was an experiment during powerdown of the reactor. The powerdown was screwed up and the reactor was thus unstable when the experiment began, so when things went wrong (pretty quickly), everything that followed also went very quickly. The reactor design of Chernobyl was rather unique and dangerous as well. That's just some of the many differences between Chernobyl and the current crisis.

[Scott747]

This might help. Generic enough that most everyone should understand how things evolved in the early stages -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu5RigfJW0w&feature=player_embedded#at=114

[Ed Lizard]

Chernobyl should never be compared to this. That was a graphite reactor that had a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity, a bad thing, and no containment building, and low level managers approved of an experiment that resulted in the reactor going super critical and exploding.

This reactor is already shut down, the heat being produced is from fission decay products, and the longer the reactor is shut down, the less heat it generates.

[cut]

If they indeed measured cesium 137, a fission product, there has been at least slight damage to the fuel rods. Cesium has a short half life, and is present in very minute quantities in nature. Thus, measuring Cs 137 is indication of fuel rod damage and fission product release.

The release could be small...

It appears that the USS Reagen definitely recieved radiation, and they were 160 KM away, that is a grim point about the state of this situation in my humble opinion.

[Ed Lizard]

There'd be some radiation release if coolant was vented even if there was no core damage. Non radioactive cobalt, for example, will absorb neutrons in proximity to the reactor and become radioactive Cobalt 60. That is why Navy nuclear reactors use as little cobalt as possible in designing the reactors. But other susbstances in the radiation flux from the reactor will become briefly radioactive.

[daddylonglegs]

Cut-

Not entirely because we've know about them releasing radioactive steam... Top that with two buildings that have blown up (spewing radiation that may have settled locally back into the air)... They have to release that or else the whole thing could melt down. You take the good with the bad.

The best thing is that its been a few days and they haven't completely melted down. The longer this goes on, you would *think* the better the outcome because those rods *should* be cooling down some.

I would think that somewhere they are figuring out how to get the pumps working again to circulate water in and out of those reactors.

If you see them hovering over the reactor dumping sand and concrete, you'll know things have turned ugly.

[Master of Disaster]

Chernobyl should never be compared to this. That was a graphite reactor that had a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity, a bad thing, and no containment building, and low level managers approved of an experiment that resulted in the reactor going super critical and exploding.

This reactor is already shut down, the heat being produced is from fission decay products, and the longer the reactor is shut down, the less heat it generates.

That really wasnt the point. The point was different ways of handeling a nuclear reactor. Hell Russia wouldnt even acknoweledge a massive release until workers at another plant in another country hundreds of miles away showed up for work and were already radioactive before walking in the door. If we didnt know any better, one would think that might happen here where some unrelated operation hundreds of miles away were the first to notice something wasnt right

[cut]

Cut-

Not entirely because we've know about them releasing radioactive steam... Top that with two buildings that have blown up (spewing radiation that may have settled locally back into the air)... They have to release that or else the whole thing could melt down. You take the good with the bad.

The best thing is that its been a few days and they haven't completely melted down. The longer this goes on, you would *think* the better the outcome because those rods *should* be cooling down some.

I would think that somewhere they are figuring out how to get the pumps working again to circulate water in and out of those reactors.

If you see them hovering over the reactor dumping sand and concrete, you'll know things have turned ugly.

I think the sand and concrete is coming no matter what, hopefully it is in several days or weeks, and it is just to cap it permanently. Once the seawater went in, their fate was sealed that way, they will never come on line again.

[JoMo]

Edano is having another briefing. Says that #2 is still unstable.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

I think the sand and concrete is coming no matter what, hopefully it is in several days or weeks, and it is just to cap it permanently. Once the seawater went in, their fate was sealed that way, they will never come on line again.

yep.

Pilgrim is up for license renewal here. The fact that it is the same model type as the one failing...

I'm all for nuclear energy. This will hopefully be a major catastrophe averted that will benefit all other plants everywhere.

[JoMo]

yep.

Pilgrim is up for license renewal here. The fact that it is the same model type as the one failing...

I'm all for nuclear energy. This will hopefully be a major catastrophe averted that will benefit all other plants everywhere.

Does that area frequently get hit by Earthquakes and Tsunamis?

[Master of Disaster]

yep.

Pilgrim is up for license renewal here. The fact that it is the same model type as the one failing...

I'm all for nuclear energy. This will hopefully be a major catastrophe averted that will benefit all other plants everywhere.

Kind of interesting to hear the talking heads in the US already discussing a possible moratorium in classic knee jerk fashion.

[Master of Disaster]

Does that area frequently get his by Earthquakes and Tsunamis?

We had to do a security zone for Pilgrim and Indian Point following 9-11, both are at risk for a Tsunami. Being that they all use water to cool. In fact, Indian Point had a release from a containment pool a few years ago. The only ones who arent at risk would be those who use non tidal supplies like Peach Botton and TMI.

[Mallow]

This might help. Generic enough that most everyone should understand how things evolved in the early stages -

Very helpful video, thanks.

Basically, it was the perfect storm...

Earthquake stopped the initial cooling mechanism. Tsunami likely stopped the secondary mechanism. The third mechanism malfunctioned for an unknown reason. And you're left with trying to pump seawater in as a last-ditch effort.

[LovintheWhiteFluff]

The reactor core itself is 6" thick stainless steel, designed to do what the Twin Towers couldn't (survive a direct hit from a passenger jet).

The containment building walls are 4 feet to 5 feet thick only at the base of the containment structure, said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, a moderate organization that opposes construction of more nuclear power plants and pushes greater security for the existing fleet. Reactor containment walls are typically only 1.5 feet to 2.5 feet thick at the domed top, he said. Study Shows Vulnerability

A 1974 study by General Electric, a major builder of power plants, shows that if a plant sustained the kind of hit that the Pentagon building took Tuesday, the containment wall almost certainly would break.

The GE study estimated that if a "heavy" airliner traveling at cruising speed hit a nuclear reactor building at the 6-foot-thick base, the chances of it breaking through the wall would be 32%. If it hit the wall where the thickness is only 2 feet, the probability of perforation climbs to 84%. At a thickness of 1.5 feet, penetration is certain.

http://www.nci.org/01/09/14-16.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Southern California Edison, September 17, 2001:

"I am confident in saying that San Onofre's containment buildings are the strongest structures in all of Southern California,'' said Ray Golden, San Onofre business manager for Southern California Edison."They are designed to withstand earthquakes, floods and mudslides. But they are not designed to protect against the type of aircraft used in last week's terrorist attacks.''

http://www.nci.org/01/09/19-1.htm[/url]]

-------------------------------------------------------------

Nuclear Energy Institute, September 14, 2001:

Even the nuclear power industry's association moderated its assurances in light of this week's attack.

"I'm not going to tell you that we can guarantee that the sites are impervious to every single scenario that can be envisioned," said Steven Kerekes, spokesman for the association, the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The NRC has no tests for airplane crashes. Tests for terrorist attacks have always simulated attempts by a few people to breach a plant on foot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[NRC Press Release, NRC Reacts to Terrorist Attacks, September 21, 2001. http://www.nrc.gov/O...rcv/01-112.html]

"Nuclear power plants aren't explicitly designed for the crash of large commercial aircraft of the type involved in this week's events," William Beecher, the director of public affairs for the NRC, conceded Friday.

http://www.nci.org/01/09/14-16.htm[/url]]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 21, 2001:

Q: What would happen if a large commercial airliner was intentionally crashed into a nuclear power plant?

A:. Nuclear power plants have inherent capability to protect public health and safety through such features as robust containment buildings, redundant safety systems, and highly trained operators. They are among the most hardened structures in the country and are designed to withstand extreme events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. In addition, all NRC licenses with significant radiological material have emergency response plans to enable the mitigation of impacts on the public in the event of a release. However, the NRC did not specifically contemplate attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s and nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand such crashes. Detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed.

[Allsnow]

Not to completely derail this...but the possibility exists that wtc 1 and 2 could have survived the initial hits..but combined with the fires caused the collapse.

Yeah the jet fuel pretty much weaken and expanded the steel.

[famartin]

That's nice. Thanks for misinterpreting what " means for what ' means, which essential renders everything you just posted worthless.

The containment building walls are 4 feet to 5 feet thick only at the base of the containment structure, said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, a moderate organization that opposes construction of more nuclear power plants and pushes greater security for the existing fleet. Reactor containment walls are typically only 1.5 feet to 2.5 feet thick at the domed top, he said. Study Shows Vulnerability

A 1974 study by General Electric, a major builder of power plants, shows that if a plant sustained the kind of hit that the Pentagon building took Tuesday, the containment wall almost certainly would break.

The GE study estimated that if a "heavy" airliner traveling at cruising speed hit a nuclear reactor building at the 6-foot-thick base, the chances of it breaking through the wall would be 32%. If it hit the wall where the thickness is only 2 feet, the probability of perforation climbs to 84%. At a thickness of 1.5 feet, penetration is certain.

http://www.nci.org/01/09/14-16.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Southern California Edison, September 17, 2001:

"I am confident in saying that San Onofre's containment buildings are the strongest structures in all of Southern California,'' said Ray Golden, San Onofre business manager for Southern California Edison."They are designed to withstand earthquakes, floods and mudslides. But they are not designed to protect against the type of aircraft used in last week's terrorist attacks.'' Quoted in Chris Knap, Orange County Register, September 18, 2001. http://www.nci.org/01/09/19-1.htm

------------------------------------------------------------

Nuclear Energy Institute, September 14, 2001:

Even the nuclear power industry's association moderated its assurances in light of this week's attack.

"I'm not going to tell you that we can guarantee that the sites are impervious to every single scenario that can be envisioned," said Steven Kerekes, spokesman for the association, the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The NRC has no tests for airplane crashes. Tests for terrorist attacks have always simulated attempts by a few people to breach a plant on foot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

NRC Press Release, NRC Reacts to Terrorist Attacks, September 21, 2001. http://www.nrc.gov/O...rcv/01-112.html

"Nuclear power plants aren't explicitly designed for the crash of large commercial aircraft of the type involved in this week's events," William Beecher, the director of public affairs for the NRC, conceded Friday. Quoted in Mark Golden, Power Point: Airplane Attack Exposes Nuclear Power Myth, Dow Jones News Service, September 14, 2001. http://www.nci.org/01/09/14-16.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 21, 2001:

Q: What would happen if a large commercial airliner was intentionally crashed into a nuclear power plant?

A:. Nuclear power plants have inherent capability to protect public health and safety through such features as robust containment buildings, redundant safety systems, and highly trained operators. They are among the most hardened structures in the country and are designed to withstand extreme events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. In addition, all NRC licenses with significant radiological material have emergency response plans to enable the mitigation of impacts on the public in the event of a release. However, the NRC did not specifically contemplate attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s and nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand such crashes. Detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed.

[A-L-E-X]

Ray, this incident has created a whole new kind of weenie. One that glows in the dark (or thinks they do from a partial meltdown thousands of miles away.)

[Scott747]

May have already been posted...

Great look at the site post #3 explosion. #3 definitely looks worse off but as noted before with the #1 blast the main containment system can't be seen.

[NaoPos]

Yeah the jet fuel pretty much weaken and expanded the steel.

The fact that the steel's insulation was shook off during the impact at certain floor levels wherebthe fires occurred was a huge factor.. But that's off topic..

I do want to note the board for being exceptionally fast info coming out that's mostly good info. Keep up the good work. Its easy to filter out the alarmist and continue reading the good links on here. No one here is a true nuclear scientist, we should expect that. But it's not that hard to find info on nuclear accidents.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to hear any outcome. It's a play it by ear situation.

1 more thing. Like ray said, with the oxidiZing occurring. You don't need an outside heat source. The process of oxidization has a by product of heat itself. ( hence why mulch can catch on fire in large piles spontaneously)

[Master of Disaster]

May have already been posted...

Great look at the site post #3 explosion. #3 definitely looks worse off but as noted before with the #1 blast the main containment system can't be seen.

Excellent find!!

[JoMo]

Kyodo is reporting a 'partial defect' in the container of Reactor #2.

Quoting Edano.

Reporting no sharp rise in radiation at reactor #2 as well.

[Plokoon111]

^ Defect meaning a crack?